1996 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Planning Case No. 457-96: 84R0 Pleasant View Drive October 2, 1996 Page 2 g. The proposed variance will nat innpair an adequate supply of Iight and air to adjacent property or substantially incrrease the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of %re or endanger the public safety or substantially dizr�inish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impos� such restrictions and conditions upon the premises beneiited by a variance as may be necessary to camply with the standards established by thzs Title or to reduce or mitumize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. tlttach��nfs: Planning Applicatian Zoning Map Plot P1an Floorplan Hardship Statement Resolution 478-9b �ackground: The appiicant is requesting a variance to replace an existing deck wifh a three-season porch on l�is property at 34$0 Pleasant View Dr�ve. The property is located on a cul-de- sac; therefore, the lot is an irregular shape and restricted the placement of the home at the time of construction. The house was built in 1977, and is located 22 feet from the rear property line. The applicant has indicated in his letter that the setback requirements at the time were different, Staffhas researched the Zoning Code and found that the rear setback requirement was 20 feet in 1960, and was changed to the current 30 feet in 1970. We understand that Mr, Gardner was the owner of the property when the house was buiit and did receive a building pez-mit for construction of the house. The certificate of survey from i 977 shows the house in its present location. We do not know why the house was allowed to be buiit at 22 feet. The porch would replace a deck which was outside sliding gIass doors from the dining room in the Gardners' home. The applicant has provided the City with fioor plans for the house. (A copy of this area is attached,) They have indicated thai there is no other practical way to arrange the doorway from the dining room except to tke rear yard. � The appticant has submitted a hardship staternent regarding his request. Mr. Gardner has stated that he does have an irregular shaped iot which requires that the house be pushed backward toward the cear property line, and makes ii di�cult to add any improvements on the rear of the house. He notes that many of the neighbors have three-seasan porches, so ailowing the variance would not grant a special privilege. Without the variance, he wouid be deprived of an improvement which many of his neighbors enjoy. He indicates that the porch wouid be screened from his nei�hbor's property by existing trees. �`j